Full question:
I have a detailed and complex situation that has been most entirely surrounding an online relationship with a very small-time actor. I feel I might be interested in learning my rights, if I am at all entitled to any damages in the ending stages of a relationship filled with constant deception purposefully willful lying and even humiliation publicly to some degree.. within my family and close personal friend circles. If at very least learn if I would be protected legally and within my personal rights should I seek my own closure by telling my story or writing a book someday about my personal experience with the said actor? I have been repetitively consistently intentionally misled and deceived. I feel extremely violated and manipulated. I offered up compromising intimate photos and information as a result of this and have even lost some small amounts of money. I am an educated woman who has never fallen victim this way. I have lost a great deal of respect from others and of myself in this predicament and for my own personal closure and the length it went on (4 yrs). I feel certain I am dealing with a narcissistic personality and that also supplies reasoning and further explanation to how difficult this has been to end the relationship.
- Category: Privacy
- Date:
- State: California
Answer:
Invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. It encompasses workplace monitoring, Internet privacy, data collection, and other means of disseminating private information. A non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.
A public figure is a person of great public interest or fame, such as a politician, celebrity, or sports hero. The term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions, where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove disparaging remarks were made with actual malice.
A person may also be considered a "limited purpose" public figure by having thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. The determination is made on a case-by-case basis, taking the particular facts into account.
The tort of appropriation involves the appropriation of a person's name or likeness for the defendant's economic benefit. This branch of invasion of privacy law recognizes an individual's right to privacy from commercial exploitation. It emphasizes a person's property right to exploit his or her own name or image for his or her own economic benefit. This type of privacy right is often described as an interference with the "right of publicity." The right of publicity recognizes the individual's right to regulate and obtain the benefits from the commercial exploitation of his name, likeness, identifying characteristics, and performances. Exceptions, among others, include when the information is disseminated as part of newsworthy events or matters of public interest, or consent to publicity.
If there was deception used to gain economic advantage, a fraud claim may apply. Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.
To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact', not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made.
Sometimes, it must be shown that the plaintiff's reliance was justifiable, and that upon reasonable inquiry would not have discovered the truth of the matter. For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.
To constitute fraud the misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident, or in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity. Also, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation and/or omission; that the plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation and/or omission; and that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud. Damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud.
A scheme or artifice to defraud is not capable of precise definition, but generally is a plan or trick to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services or obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from someone. It is the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching. The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another. A ‘scheme to defraud’ connotes some form of planning or pattern.
Defamation is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are subcategories of defamation. Defamation is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion.
Libel is published material meeting three conditions:
1.the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly;
2.the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and,
3.the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published, as distinguished from slander.
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.
